FIELDS
v.
QUILLIAN ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fields appeals a summary judgment dismissing his negligence suit for injuries sustained when he fell through an uncovered portion of a building roof under construction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's uncontradicted contributory negligence precluded recovery as a matter of law.
The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that where uncontradicted evidence demonstrates the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, no recovery is possible as a matter of law, and the case need not be submitted to a jury.
“When the undisputed facts show that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant or that the negligence of the plaintiff appreciably caused the accident or was the sole proximate cause of the accident, there is nothing to submit to the jury.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment in negligence cases where plaintiff's conduct causes the injury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFields visited a three-story building under construction to see Hugo Quillian. Interpreting Quillian's hand-waving as an invitation, Fields ascended t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assumption Of Risk cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment denying damages for personal injuries.
It appears from the record that appellant went to a building in the early stages of construction to see a man by the name of Hugo Quillian. There was nothing for him to see but the steel skeleton of the three-story building with Quillian on the roof superintending his crew at work. Appellant had no knowledge about the condition of the roof or the stage of construction but he accepted the waving of the hands of Quillian as to what he understood to be an invitation to come to the top of the building. When he reached the roof, men were working on the East side end to cover it and about 25% was covered with fresh cement, about 35% with a black paper material of unknown strength, and the remaining 40% was steel framework. No one was standing or walking on the black paper and there was nothing to indicate that anyone had walked over it or that it was safe to be walked upon. There were ropes and barricades around the building but appellant made no inquiry and sought no permission to go to the top of the building except what he considered to be an invitation from Quil-lian by the waving of arms and hands. When he got to the top of the building he did not know that Quillian was unaware that appellant had reached the roof but he observed Quillian at work on the North side of the roof and he made no attempt to communicate with Quillian or make his presence known. He had no knowledge or experience in such a situation and did not inquire or ascertain from anyone whether it was safe or advisable for him to step upon and walk across the black paper covering he saw in front of him. He saw boards spread about on the roof and he lowered 'himself from the parapet wall to the roof and started across it to see Quil-lian. He weighed 178 pounds. The black covering would not support his weight. He could have ascertained this fact by inquiry which he failed to make. He fell through to the girder or steel joist of the second floor. When the undisputed facts show that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant or that the negligence of the plaintiff appreciably caused the accident or was the sole proximate cause of the accident, there is nothing to submit to the jury. Faulk v. Parrish, Fla., 58 So. 2d 523.
The Court found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and entered final summary judgments in favor of the defendants.
This Court has repeatedly held that a summary judgment should be entered where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and such facts show that the asserted claim is without merit. Nothing could be accomplished by submitting the case to the jury. Lomas v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 57 So. 2d 881; Goodman v. Miami Beach Ry. Co., Fla., 57 So. 2d 445; Richmond v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla., 58 So. 2d 687; Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria of Orlando, Fla., 61 So. 2d 477; Embry v. Southern Gas & Electric Corp., Fla., 63 So. 2d 258, 264; Bottom v. Rank, Fla., 70 So. 2d 832.
It is likewise the settled law in this State that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence there can be no recovery. Ferlita & Sons v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery, 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366; Clyde Bar, Inc. v. McClamma, 152 Fla. 118, 10 So. 2d 916; Tutwiler v. Beverally Nalle, Inc., 152 Fla. 479, 12 So. 2d 163; Miller v. Shull, Fla., 48 So. 2d 521; Feigen v. Sokolsky, Fla., 65 So. 2d 769.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc., 82 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1955)…TERRELL, Justice (dissenting). I think this case is ruled by Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 47 So. 2d 527, Fields v. Quillian, Fla., 74 So. 2d 230 and United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268, 42 S.Ct. 299, 66 L.Ed. 615, and being so the judgment should be affirmed. I therefore dissent. THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.…
-
Bashaw v. Dyke, 122 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…original house. Whatever caused it to he slippery is not traceable to the defendant. Thus the determinative ultimate fact is that Mrs. Dyke’s own purposeful conduct was an efficient intervening cause that led to her injury. Fields v. Quillian, Fla., 74 So. 2d 230. There is no evidence that sheetrock per se is inherently dangerous. Whatever danger existed by reason of its weight was quite obvious to and actually encountered by Mrs. Dyke in time to avoid the consequences of her purposeful acts. Even had she n…
-
Hormovitis v. Mut. Lumber Co., 120 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…Likewise, when the undisputed facts show that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant or that the negligence of the plaintiff was the proximate cause of the accident, there is nothing to submit to the jury. Fields v. Quillian, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 230. In the instant case there was no evidence that the defendant saw or should have seen the plaintiff’s truck or that the defendant should have expected the plaintiff to enter and cross U. S. Highway No. 1 without stopping. Certainly the defendant whi…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Matson v. TIP TOP Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1942)
- Abarca v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Richmond v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 58 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1952)
- G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc. v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1940)
- Clyde BAR, Inc. v. Rosaland McClamma, 152 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1942)
- Miller v. Shull, 48 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1950)
- In re Application of Marion E. Sibley to Resign from the Bar of the State of Fla., 151 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1942)
- Embrey v. S. GAS & Elec. Corp., 63 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1953)
- Lomas v. W. Palm Beach Water Co., 57 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1952)
- Tutwiler v. I. Beverally Nalle, Inc., 152 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1943)